Jump to content

Talk:Serbs of Croatia/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Infobox images

Who has the most views at Wikipedia will be included in the infobox, agree? We need 9 persons, 12 is away too much. Agree?--Wustenfuchs 14:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The most common name of Josif Runjanin is - Josip Runjanin [1]. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I bealive you :D However, I wonder why mm. Srb. won't involve in this discussion since I made it because of him. Is ther any problems? It seams I will decide about this. OK, I plan to do it this way, from those 12 persons we have now, I'll kick out 3 so we have 9, those nine will be the most famous of them, and we will check this out by statistics how much their articles were viewed in a month. I hope you agree?--Wustenfuchs 12:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I found results (from March 2, 2011 - April 1, 2011), and this ain't no April 1 joke, it goes like this:

  1. Nikola Tesla - 276,208
  2. Peja Stojaković - 17,248
  3. Rade Šerbedžija - 12,971
  4. Jovanka Broz - 3,174
  5. Milutin Milanković - 2,974
  6. Patriarch Pavle of Serbia - 766
  7. Simo Matavulj - 594
  8. Rade Končar - 522
  9. Zaharije Orfelin - 343
  10. Svetozar Pribićević - 336
  11. Dejan Medaković - 214
  12. Josip Runjanin - 111

It means that Svetozar Pribićević, Dejan Medaković and Josip Runjanin are out of the list. Also, Zaharije Orfelin was replaced by Jovan Karamata, since article about him has more views (346).--Wustenfuchs 13:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the infobox format we're using is best for rows of 4 images. 3 can be used per row, but then the images would seem either over-large (if expanded), or the infobox would be too narrow (see the width of the Germans template, for example). So I think either 8 or 12 or 16 should be the number, though I must say I prefer 12.
Your method of researching notability by way of article traffic is very commendable indeed. It is exactly the sort of thing I've been saying over and over again on Talk:Croats: an objective, impersonal method of determining which "notables" are significant and which are not. In science, one's personal, subjective opinion is completely irrelevant, and this is how Wiki is organized. I mean who are we to say which person is "better" by simply voting? That said, I have a suggestion: perhaps comparing Google or Google Books hits would be more appropriate? I mean both methods are right, really.., but someone might say "Wikipedia is not a source" and devalue the whole work?
P.S. Jovan Karamata is a very famous scientist. Scratch that, you seem to have read my mind.. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Then should we add 8 persons, because look like this, Croats will have 12 persons like Serbs of Croatia, this can't be good, because their notability comes to question. Josip Runjanin maybe can pass at Croatian Wikipedia, but not here. Agreed?

P.S. As I remember, I proposed same thing at Talk:Croats.

Croast will have 16 pics. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Runjanin, the man who composed the Croatian anthem, should definitely be in there. And btw the so-called "commendable method of researching notability by way of article traffic" is a commendable effort but unfortunately has nothing to do with the issue as it does not measure people's fame or infamy. For the difference between notable vs. (in)famous, consult a dictionary of the English language of your choice. Understanding what we are researching before researching it is also one of the ways in which Wiki - like any kind of research in general - is organized. Regards. Timbouctou (talk) 22:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I commended that method as a step in the right direction. The real determinant of someone's notability is basically their Google hits. I also do not think we will be needing a dictionary, Tim - we can simply use your talkpage posts, which by this time must surely contain every word in the English language. I recommend you consult them yourself, just to figure out whether Wikipedia works on the principle of "fame" or notability. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
You were banned and warned at least five times already for violating the principles on which "Wiki works" so I suppose this piece of advice comes from an expert. Timbouctou (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes I'm a bad, bad boy. :) We should probably just accept that you declare "fame" is something to go by, and then let you define this "fame" as you please. Yes, that's it.
Snappy retort, though, ever so brief and to the point. Maybe some good will come of all this after all. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the issue, almost all of the info boxes in articles about ethnic groups do not adhere to what you falsely claim to be the guidelines. If you have a problem with it (and you obviously do) you should raise the issue on WikiProjects which cover these articles - in this case WP:Serbia and WP:Croatia. That is how Wiki works. Also, do try to be civil. Cheers. Timbouctou (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Did you bring up your "Fame Theory"? :) Can I see where it was accepted exactly? It must be convenient to have invented a vague criteria you yourself both force into usage AND define as you please. As opposed to an objective measurement detached from the personal preferences of Wikipedians (more specifically: you). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Fame is obviously a subjective measure of a person's stature and info boxes which are supposed to present famous people cannot and do not pretend to be objective assessments in any of these articles. This is precisely why your ideas about measuring something completely immeasurable are misplaced here. Also, you should really tone down your personal attacks. I have no agenda here other than proving that your argument is flawed and that you have made a habit of presenting rationalizations of your own opinions as accepted policies. As for my opinion who should be included here, Šerbedžija and Runjanin seem like a must. Timbouctou (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I know you are here only to create a verbal confrontation with me, that much is obvious without you saying so, but I never said any of this was policy or even a guideline. Merely that it is in-line with Wikipedia's principles of objectivity. But lets talk about your "Fame" idea. Is it based on you "eloquently" declaring someone more famous or less famous, or is it in actual contradiction with WP:NOT as a criteria dependent only on which Wikipedians care to post their favourite persons at some given time? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Unlike some of your ideas, the so-called "fame idea" is not something I invented, and I never claimed I should be the one deciding who is famous or not. Virtually each and every out of dozens of articles about ethnicities on WP arrived to a list of "famous" (not just "notable") people by discussing it in their respective talk pages or WikiProjects and deciding about it by a consensus. Why you are still insisting that this is not the way things are done around Wikipedia beats me. You are either unwilling or unable to grasp why your purportedly scientific methods do not apply here. Timbouctou (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Momčilo Đujić is a Nazi collaborator. What in the world is he doing there? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps he is notable? :-) Timbouctou (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Four words only? a definitive sign of progress.
I did not say notability was the only criteria. In fact I specifically spoke in plural. Once someone is established as notable we can determine whether he is inappropriate for inclusion based on his complicity in war crimes or genocide. This, as you may notice, is another objective, impersonal criteria. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
"Complicity in war crimes" is another "objective, impersonal" criteria? According to the Momčilo Đujić article he was tried in absentia and was never extradited from the U.S. Another request to extradite him and put him on trial in the mid 1980s apparently followed (meaning that the first conviction must have been declared void) and ended nowhere. The article itself presents absolutely no evidence that he took part in any war crime. If the man never received a fair trial and if we have no reason to believe that he actually took part in a war crime, then what exactly makes your assessment objective and impartial? I'm dying to know. Timbouctou (talk) 01:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The sources are quite clear on this. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
What sources are clear on what? His NYT obituary has surprisingly little to say about the alleged war crimes. It calls the 1946 Yugoslav conviction "a branding" and says it was due to allegations he made deals with the Ustashe. Now even if he did make deals with them (and he claimed he did not) it is not enough to label him a war criminal. As for any specific crimes he might have been involved in, I don't see a single source which offers any details about it. Unless you can objectively and impartially provide some reliable sources and include them in the Đajić article I have no reason to believe that your assessment is anything but subjective and biased. Happy editing. Timbouctou (talk) 02:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Timbouctou, I am not going to start a discussion with you about Momčilo Đujić of all people. I'm sure you can find some other place to argue with me. It suffices to say that (whether you may think I'm arrogant or not) I posses a comprehensive and detailed understanding of WWII Yugoslavia, whereas you are just Googling and reading about this guy on Wikipedia for the first time in your life - just to spite me. Otherwise, had you known anything at all about this person, you would not even have tried to start this discussion. Let me put it this way: if any of the Mihailović Chetniks anywhere ever collaborated with the Axis - it was Momčilo Đujić. Chetnik supporters themselves use him as a scapegoat and admit "it was not Draža that collaborated, it was Momčilo Đujić". As for the sources, take your pick [2]. I humbly (not arrogantly :)) suggest you extricate yourself from this discussion with grace. It does not do you credit to search for sources on Wikipedia's Balkans articles. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 03:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Absolutely nothing you said above or the link you so graciously provided adds a scintilla of support for your argument that Momčilo Đujić is a "war criminal". Again, if you feel knowledgeable about the topic you might consider expanding the article on Đujić instead of engaging in essentially useless debates over a mere illustration in an article only marginally related to him. Seems kind of strange that an expert on Yugoslavia is not concerned one bit that an article on an alleged war criminal says absolutely nothing about war crimes. Seems even stranger that a self-proclaimed expert on WWII thinks "collaboration" equals war crime. Stranger still is that an editor who is a student of medicine describing himself as an expert on Yugoslavia thinks that his opinion somehow trumps others' on Wikipedia (and without sources it is just that - an opinion). But maybe the most amazing thing is that you actually made it to become Senior Editor with this level of arrogance and disregard for the collaborative work that is Wikipedia. It is you who should take a pick and use sources. The irony of it is that if you were really "objective and impartial" you would be doing it to satisfy your own principles - not mine. Timbouctou (talk) 05:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


I really have to copy down all that text by hand? Really? Well all right, just this once, and just a part. In the future I will simply post the page number. Momčilo Đujić is a notorious Axis collaborator. This is well known and completely obvious. Only a person completely unfamiliar with this person's activities, one who never really took the time to understand WWII Yugoslavia, could possibly state that this person did not collaborate with the Axis.

Here are just a few examples I found on a quick search. I really can't be made to write all afternoon copying down entire chapters about Chetnik collaboration in

"A report of the [German] XCVIIth Army Corps notes that (...) In case of an Axis landing they would change sides, as would collaborating Serbian groups, that is, Ljotić's Serbian Volunteer Corps, and the Chetniks of Dobroslav Jevđević and Momčilo Đujić."

— Tomasevich, Occupation and Collaboration, 2001 (p. 127)

But in other cases, for example that of Revered Đujić's detachments in northern Dalmatia and Western Bosnia, the Italians used Chetnik Units almost...

— Tomasevich, Occupation and Collaboration, 2001 (p. 262)

"Some troops, notably those under Đujić and Jevđević, as well as a large part of the forces in eastern Bosnia, continued to collaborate with the Germans against the Partisans."

— Tomasevich, The Chetniks, 2001 (p. 428)

"On November 20 1944 the Germans intercepted a radion message from Mihailović to Vojvoda ["duke"] Đujić, his commander in northern Dalmatia, instructing him to cooperate with the German forces. He himself, he says, "cannot go along because of public opinion". Microcopy No. T-311, Roll 196, Frame 225. This refusal to have any personal dealings with teh enemy is a policy that Mihailović departed from only on five occasions: the Divci conference in mid-November 1941, two conferences with Envoy Neuerbach's representative [Hermann Neubacher, chief envoy of Nazi Germany in the Balkans], Rudolf Stärker, in the autumn of 1944, and again with Stärker on Vučjak Mountain in 1945."

— Tomasevich, The Chetniks, 2001 (p. 329)

Oh here's Ramet, she's a lot more superficial than a work that deals only and specifically with the Chetniks, but here we go:

"By mid-June 1942, the NDH authorities have established cooperation with the following Chetnik leaders: (...) Momčilo Đujić (Strmica)..."

— Ramet, The Three Yugoslavias, (p.129)

Đujić is the No.1 Chetnik leader ("vojvoda") who collaborated with the Axis, primarily with the Italians, but also with the Germans and the NDH since mid-1942, not only with Mihailović's full knowledge - but under his explicit instructions. As for Mihailović himself, Tomasevich essentially devotes the whole chapter "After the Italian collapse" to describing the complex collaboration agreements between the Chetniks and the Germans (that followed the Italian capitulation). He notes that these agreements (which detailed the areas in which Chetniks were to cooperate with the Germans) deliberately left a corridor between Mihsilović's "personal" area, which was under his direct command, and the "areas of collaboration" where the treasonous agreements apply. He also notes on pp. 328-329, that this was in accordance with Mihailović's policy of "keeping his own hands clean". A policy he himself admitted to in numerous intercepted communications with his subprdinates. All this is straight from the German records and is closely supported by said primary sources. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Well there you go. You can't have your cake and eat it. You can't say selecting people by article hits or google hits is the scientific, objective way of selecting the most notable Serbs and then, when you don't like the genocidal killers or ephemeral celebs say you didn't mean them. Lets have a bit of common sense here. It doesn't have to be people whose articles get most hits, or people English speakers will already have heard of. There is no scientific approach. This is a human, collaborative effort to compile a group of Serbs from Croatia who have done something that makes them stand out from the crowd in a variety of ways. Mass popularity is not required. How many people outside the scienific comunity or Croatia would have heard of Prelog? Doesn't make him not worthy of inclusion on the croats page.(that was me - Fainites)

I can have my cake for lunch and eat it too. :) If you look carefully at what I am proposing, you'll see that I'm not suggesting we use only the Google hits as the sole criteria. In essence, all I mean is that we need objective criteria (plural). That's it. For example, a good system imo would be to create an inital list of candidates based on notability (step 1), and then filter the list in accordance with pre-determined, objective conditions for exlusion. We exclude, for example, all persons the sources can confirm are directly responsible for criminal acts, and those that have no available image. This is just an example of what I have in mind.
Humans are fine, when they agree, but when two humans disagree the only way to determine the facts are inhumane methods. It took us alomost 10,000 years to figure that out just a few centuries ago. However please note that there really is no dispute here, editors are essentially in agreement over article content. Tim is just following my contribs and trying to pick a fight (see above discussion), just like on Talk:Yugoslav Front ("false dichotomy"?). He seems to have found Đujić. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The entire section above is a textbook example of WP:OR and possibly WP:SYNTH. In addition, it belongs to Talk:Momčilo Đujić and if any admin is reading this he or she should move it there. It also has absolutely no bearing on the topic at hand as he proves yet again that not a single source calls Đujić a "war criminal" explicitly. His own view is that fame and infamy should have no part in choosing which persons should a info box include, so his case is not only in contradiction to Wiki policies - it is in contradiction to his own sell-proclaimed principles of objectivity. Claiming that any collaboration with the Ustashe equals a "criminal act" is WP:POV and a Senior Editor such as Direktor should know this. In conclusion, he is either unable or incapable of following Wiki policies and therefore his musings on Đujić should be ignored. Timbouctou (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think anybody except Wustenfuchs was proposing to include assorted Chetnik leaders and/or collaborators in the infobox.Fainites barleyscribs 20:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The point here is that Direktor has made a habit of barking at wrong trees on Wikipedia. If he has something to share about Đujić he should share it in the article about him. The fact that he stubbornly insists on a pseudo-scientific method of determining something which is by definition subject to subjectivity (e.g. "famous people") disqualifies him from participating in this discussion. Yes, he his pushing POV. Yes, it had been tolerated at the time when Wikipedia was infested by assorted nationalists. But now that they are gone Direktor is nothing but a troll. How many more bans does he need to get for this to become obvious enough? There is virtually no article he has ever been involved in which did not result in an edit war and violations of WP:CIVIL. He may be knowledgeable but he is hardly capable of collaborating with other editors, he follows policies when it suits him and ignores them when it doesn't, he is polite to others only when he feels that there's a admin watching him and he is very quick to revert to his old arrogant self when he feels that admins got tired of following him around. This needs to stop. I for one couldn't care less whether Đujić is in the info box or not as it is unlikely that the universe would implode with him or without him in this specific article - but I resent the fact that this kind of WP:OWN can pass without sanctions. Timbouctou (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Off course this is all off-topic, its just funny to see Tim say so. You started a pointless discussion, as on other pages, following my contribs and looking for a fight to spite me immediately after I asked you on Talk:Croats to "please avoid me on this project" (in response to being insulted one time too many). When I decided to ignore your provocations here and address an actual content issue, namely the introduction of Đujić, you started to oppose me there for opposition's sake claiming that he "did not collaborate" with the Axis. When proven DEAD wrong yet again you accuse me of being "off-topic", and, most unbelievably, you claim that quoting secondary sources from published historians is "WP:OR". xD

Well this has been fun boys and girls, but I'm off. I only discuss actual article changes. As for Tim's ideas on determining article content by voting on it, I see no point in induging him in another of his arguments for argument's sake. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You are putting words in my mouth. I NEVER said that Đujić did not collaborate with the Axis while you explicitly labeled him a "war criminal". In an attempt to pretend objectivity you then pasted quotes, not a single one of which describes him as a "war criminal". If you have problems understanding what a "war criminal" is I suggest you consult Wikipedia's article on war crime. If you have problems understanding why Wikipedia avoids such labels you should study Wiki policies a bit closer (for illustration, the rather lengthy article on Adolf Hitler does not use a single instance of the phrase "war criminal"). What you are doing here is original research, synthesis and POV-pushing rolled into one. Furthermore, I never proposed any voting here to take place - I merely argued for any selection to be a result of consensus, as opposed to pseudo-scientific methods invented by you, which you tailor to meet your specific POV needs from article to article. On top of everything, you continue hurling insults, you never stopped for a second to assume good faith and you promote battlefield mentality in each and every one of your posts. Timbouctou (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Don´t warry Timbouctou, direktor is known of bias specially against the Chetnik movement but generally on historical issues. He massively uses selected sources from people who can hardly be considered neither experts neither neutral on the issue. For instance, Tomašević (and not Tomashevich, you want make him non-Yugoslav by writting his name weardly) is a Croatian from Dalmatia who seems to have been choosed by Tito to be "an expert" about WWII and Chetniks. I know you will understand the irony of choosing a pro Tito Croatian to writte about a Serbian Monarchic movement. It is just a shame more editors haven´t been involved, so all his editing went on unchallenged. Chetniks were no "heroes" as Serbian nationalists paint them, but they were totaly not Germans friends, so having the trouth in between, and with editors suposedly being able to undrstand and uncknolldge this, ignoring it and porsuing the continuos agenda on the issue is a clear disruption. FkpCascais (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
It should be beneath me to even address another one of your famous "write my personal opinion over and over again to make it true" posts, but:
  • Tomasevich published his latest peer review work in 2001. Tito was dead in 1980. Yugoslavia (and communism) fell apart by 1992. The Ghost of Communists Past got him to write this?
  • Tomasevich was published under peer review by Stanford University (a well known communist front for Josip Broz Tito). WP:SOURCES: "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science."
  • Tomasevich uses the German archives. The quotes above, and indeed almost every word in his works, are verbatim quotes from primary sources (referneced in detail). Were the Germans working for Tito too? Did Tomasevich and Stanford publish fraudulent sources? Do tell.
  • Tomasevich has many universally positive independent reviews by his professional peers. There is not a single negative review, apart from User:FkpCascais of course.
You on the other hand slander the late scholar incessantly. You insult all Croats and display an ethnic bias by implying that the fact that he is an academic fraud because he's a "Croat from Dalmatia" (as you have done numerous times before now). You CLAIM a lot of things without any support from anyone who's opoinion matters, such as people who actually have a degree in history. You essentially talk a lot. In any serious encyclopedia your own irrelevant "denouncements" of world-class experts would be laughed at. It is only here that they are taken "seriously", mostly because people just don't give a damn enough and/or don't know enough about the subject to basically tell you off for such behavior.
This is essentially the best possible type of source one could ever have for anything, anywhere. Yet people take you seriously when you write stuff like the above. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah right. I don´t insult any Croat by showing the irony of it. You are the one insulting all Serbs. If I was doing as you do, I would select all Serbian nationalist sources, plus the one that follow the tendency, and edit all Croatian related articles suposing that my sources say the trouth, and then, when someone Croatian confronts me, I will attack him by saying that he´s a nationalist and POV. That is exactly what you do direktor. This is not about nationalism, this is about acknolleging different views and respect them. You bring nationalism into this, I want to get this all articles rid off it. And, by the way, you don´t have sources to any of this. You don´t even know what a source is, all you know to do is make a google search for words you´re interested in finding. Remember when you wanted to use as source a sentence from a book you finded out later that it was a book glorifiying Chetniks? And you removed it quickly, ridiculous! Enough, go call war criminal to someone next to you, probably in his face, instead of hidding behind a cp. FkpCascais (talk) 05:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Please. You can post anything you want. It does not matter. I don't need another word, actually. Just that source above is IRON-CLAD evidence of Draža Mihailović ordering his subordinate on November 20 1944 via radio to collaborate with the German occupation. That's it. That German intercept record (microcopy No. T-311, Roll 196, Frame 225), a record of him in his own voice ordering someone to commit treason duriong wartime, would have been enough to have him convicted in ANY court of law in the world. It is also his own personal admission, in his own words, of his policy of "keeping his hands clean".
"I cannot go along because of public opinion" - Draža Mihailović, November 20 1944 - that sourced quote is going in the article. And when I'm done there will be a hell of a lot more of such DM quotes.
As for Tomasevich, I already told you: you can write an entire book about how you THINK he is biased. I could not possibly care less about what you "think" or "strongly believe". You can repeat it, you can write a song about it, an epic. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 06:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Mihailović → Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Draza Mihailovic. FkpCascais (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
You mean that silly year-long "mediation" where people post every two months? The place where we can find even more sources you are attempting to talk your way past? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Lets rush it then, and see if you get me right. ;) FkpCascais (talk) 11:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You have had the same argument about the same source about 5 times just since I have been involved. DIREKTOR - you do not need to reply at length and so aggressively every time the subject comes up. As I have recently pointed out to you - and you acknowledged, this is at the level of WP:DISRUPT. Nobody was seriously suggesting Duljic. FKPCascais - I have seen you raise this many times but I have yet to see you propose any decent, verifiable mainstream sources to make improvements to the Chetnik article. If you say the Chetniks are being misrepresented, make the case with the appropriate sources. Otherwise, your posts towards DIREKTOR such as the one above are again WP:DISRUPT. Both of you are now accusing each other of nationalist bias and bad faith.Fainites barleyscribs 18:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I dare say that had this nonsense managed to last over a year you might be a tad less patient yourself, Fainites. You gotta remember, for you its 5 times, for me its 3,423 times. Plus you've got to remember, I'm from th Mediterranean. :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Plus, you're a troll and have been for years. That small detail might shed some light on the matter as well. Timbouctou (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Says the troll who's been stalking me, calling my edits "bullshit", and just opposing on talkpages just for the sake of picking a fight (Đujić). But I love you Tim, no need for you to follow me around and insult me. If you want so bad to to pick a real conflict on this project, I'll help you out. Be seein' ya. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
You're a paranoid individual with a greatly over-exaggerated sense of one's own importance. There are far more better terms for your activities on Wikipedia than "edits". But hey - I must be saying it because I'm from the Mediterranean as well. Timbouctou (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
And you're a malicious, insluting, stalking troll. :) And these completely unncessary provocations above illustrate that point to perfection. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
And you're leaving no post unanswered because... you're from the Mediterranean? :-) Timbouctou (talk) 10:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I think that google books will show who is notable. I added Momčilo Đujić, and I was aware of his dishonest acts, but it seamed to me he is a good person for the infobox as he is well-known in English-speaking world, and at home (ex-Yu states) to. Timbouctou I'm geting a feeling you are making conflits just tu argue with Direktor. Problem was solved. Look like this, half of the person on the infobox aren't famous even in Croatia, how do you think they will be famous in Australia or New Zeland?! Infobox, the less pics, the better, as I think. It's not about adding 200,000 Croatian Serbs, but only a few, very, very few of them who are notable in English-speaking world. Now, for DIREKTOR, I know you are against people with "suspicious past", I am not, I just find that if they are notable, well-known (I won't say famous) in English-speaking world, then they deserve to be there, you don't need to agree with me, it's just my oppinion. We can solve that out always. Also, I need to note, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, however they hated are, they should be placed on ethnic groups infobox. Georgians done good thing, as I think, those persons changed world, good or bad, it's not on us to say. Same for Đujić, Mihailović, Pavelić and similiar chaps, again I need to say I'm not a fan of them, neither I support their ideology.--Wustenfuchs 16:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven´t been more involved in this because of one primary reason: I still don´t understand quite clear what the inclusion criteriums are. On one hand I agree with what generally Timbou, Fainites and even Direktor said, but on the other side I also understand Wustenfuchs and his reasoning of including also people without judging... Anyway, I think that when you all went from Croats infobox to others like Serbs of Croatia and Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina, you should have posted an informing note on the WikiProjects Serbia and Bosnia&H. talk pages, so more people are aware and who is interested may participate. FkpCascais (talk) 07:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
There are no inclusion criteria. It's common sense and consensus. The extensive voting process was a very good idea. Looking at google books or article wiki hits are also good ideas. All these things provide input and information on which to make informed decisions. But there's no "scientifically objective" criteria. One way of lookig at it is to think, if I knew nothing about Croats, what would interest me? Imagine clicking around and perhaps thinking ooh. I never knew the first seismologist was a Croat!. Or that's that funny East European cartoon rat thing. I am not saying we should whitewash history but I doubt swathes of genocidal killers really fills the bill. Notoriety is not the same as fame and interest. Personally, I would include Stalin and Hitler in the their respective boxes, but then that's a bit more historical. Feelings are probably a bit more raw in the Balkans due to more recent events. One thing to aim for is a box that is not going to result in years of edit warring. Fainites barleyscribs 08:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I understood that Fainites, and I agree perfectly, its absolutely esential to add in the infobox basically the people that most contributed in several fields, and to make a balance between the best known internationally and domestically with the ones perhaps less known but certainly notable for their academic or other archivements.
However, I will just like to adress the issue about Đujić. He was a Chetnik commander and a Vojvoda. The Serbian title of Vojvoda was not given lightly to everyone, so means much. Not in the sence of including it in the infobox, but about the person itself. Now, we know Chetniks were who they were and we know the complexity about their situation. The comparison as I saw with war criminals, genocidal killers (I know you didn´t refered to him) or any words of that kind is all but fair. I understand that the place Chetniks are more disliked is in Croatia, and that a certain sense of having had the Ustaše and the way they are described makes people in Croatia wanting to put Chetniks in same group, but that is simply wrong, the two were very different. I will just like to ask participants to avoid using such simplicist acusations as direktor usually did because they are not productive, neither trouth, and basically unnecesary. I am proposing not to add Đujić, but for the right reasons: the article is about Serbs in Croatia, and an inclusion of a person that bothers either one of the two nationalities involved (Serbs or Croats) shouldn´t be included, unless too notable. FkpCascais (talk) 11:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I've read all of the posts above. I fully agree with Fainites and I see Wustenfuch's and Cascais' points. About the criteria - we went through an exhaustive discussion when the consensus had been reached at the Croats article. There are just so many parameters that people might get hung up on that simply arguing for one derails the whole discussion. Should the people be selected because they are famous in Croatia, Serbia or the English-speaking world? Should they be balanced with regards to gender, era, field - or not? If so how many eras or fields do we divide them in? How many pictures? Should we put in people who are less famous to promote them or should we aim for people who are already well-known? Should we include people who are only half-Serb? And so on. We can debate all this but it is likely that it would then lead to marathon discussions which are equally likely to end nowhere, with constructive editors simply losing interest after a while and leaving the discussion. Like Fainites said, there is no guideline on how to approach this. I thought about this and I think that when we think about possible candidates we should ask ourselves if that person would be alright to illustrate the article if it was only his/hers picture in the article. If there was no info box and I had to select one person for the article about Serbs of Croatia would it be Đujić? Probably not. Šerbedžija? Sure. Stojaković? Why not. Tesla? Absolutely. Of course some editors will favor certain persons over others but in the end we should be able to select a handful of people for whom we all think are OK and who readers of the article might find interesting to read about more. It's as simple as that.
  • @FkpCascais - I see your point. I'm approaching this with no prejudice and as far as I'm concerned any candidate can be put forward by interested editors. The point here is to keep it lighthearted and to avoid offending anyone which IMO could be done if we strove to put an emphasis on people from non-controversial walks of life such as science, arts, sports, etc. That just seems like the safest route.
  • As far as the number of persons, I'm open to suggestions. In my view we should avoid overcrowding the box, and we should also keep in mind that we are talking about a relatively small group here - there's only around 100 people in Category:Serbs of Croatia most of whom without pictures - so if we take everything into consideration not more than 4-5 names will keep popping up. Notifying WP:Croatia and WP:Serbia is a good idea and I'll go do it now. I suggest we begin by each of us naming up to 5-6 candidates in the subsection below. I'll start. Timbouctou (talk) 13:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Info Box part 2

I'd also like to suggest Arsen Dedić and perhaps even Jovan Rašković. About how many people are we aiming for? --Jesuislafete (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh I don't know. I think three per row would be ideal to avoid making the box too wide, and if we had 2-3 rows that would make it 6 or 9 in total. Of course, we can always add more but we should avoid overcrowding. Timbouctou (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
It should remain 12 persons. It's not at all overcrowded, and reducing this number would certainly not add to the informativeness of the article. The only thing of interest here is, whom you would replace with whom in the infobox. Vladimir (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine with 12 too, I just thought that if images were kept at the same size three per row would align better and we can easily have four rows. I asked people to voice their ideas and not merely who would they want to replace with whom because this would result in comparing people and it shouldn't be seen as a contest. I'd like to avoid debates on Arsen Dedić vs. Patriarch Pavle and such. Why don't we just let everyone interested throw their ideas around and see which names are mentioned most often. I've left messages at WP:Croatia and WP:Serbia and hopefully we will have more input over the next few days. Timbouctou (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
No, 12 is not good, reason - it would be exaggeration, like look, this Zaharije Orfelin chap, he is maybe a fine person, respective, but who knows him? Ofcousre if he is one of the people who has the most results at Goole Books, then I'm the problem for being dumb, if not, then someone ealse should take his place. We all agree that person with most results at Google Books or views at Wikipedia should be in the infobox? My proposal is next, we all suggest few persons, and from those persons we see who should be in by criterias I stated above. I also need to say Arsen Dedić would be a great person on the infobox, he is a very respective singer and composer here. And 8 persons would be just fine other 4 arent so notable, as I said, it's too much.
Second, can you, Timouctou explain, why Đujić is so sure out?--Wustenfuchs 20:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Zaharije Orfelin chap, who knows him? This is ridiculous. Zaharije Orfelin on Google Books. All the 12 currently in the box are notable in their respective fields. It doesn't have to be always someone who is famous in the "English-speaking world". Readers might want to learnt something new. Isn't that what is an encyclopedia about? Vladimir (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • @Wustenfuchs - No, we did not agree to automatically include people based on randomly collected statistics such as Google books. I suggest you read Fainities' post above which explains the purpose of it all very nicely. We can look for ideas that way but that does not have to imply that we have to include anyone. The idea is to simply get as many people as possible to name a few of their favourite Serbs from Croatia and then to see which names come up more often. We can deal with the numbers later, no reason to bicker over it from the start. And I did not say that Đujić is out and if you like you can suggest him but I think we should avoid controversial people. And I probably do not have to explain why he may seem controversial to some.
  • @Vladimir - I agree, it does not have to be someone as globally known as Tesla, and in fact there are very few such individuals of any ethnicity. It can also be expected that some persons will be better known in Serbia and some in Croatia, and I'm all for including both (I'm Croatian and I never heard for probably a third of the people in the current version, but that's alright).
  • The point is just to get a group of people who we think would be interesting for our readers to read about that as many editors as possible can agree on by consensus. Imagine a person from Uganda who never heard of Croatia or Serbia reading this article, who would he want to read about on Wikipedia? He'd surely be more interested in Stojaković or Tesla or even Orfelin (his picture is great and totaly makes you want to click him) then somebody of only local significance. Who would you click on if you found yourself reading an article about a people you know nothing about? I for one think that Arsen is interesting but when I click on Končar or Jovanka Broz I find their biographies a bit boring - but that's just me. If enough editors state their feelings we might get a nice consensus and that will make the box stable for a longer period. That's all there is to it. Of course, if most editor who show up think that we don't need to change anything than we'll just close the discussion and consider the matter solved. But why not give people a chance to state their opinion? Timbouctou (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
From what I have read, it seems that most are comfortable with (or at least not objected to) adding Rade Šerbedžija, Nikola Tesla, Josif Runjanin, Peja Stojaković, and Arsen Dedić. That is five.
Zaharije Orfelin has been mentioned, as well as Jovan Karamata and Jovanka Broz. I'm surprised that Patriarch Pavle of Serbia has not been included, so I will add that name here for consideration. It appears that Đujić does not have much consensus. --Jesuislafete (talk) 05:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
A possible candidate for replacement could be Mrs. Broz, as she is rather indirectly notable through her husband. Also Svetozar Pribicevic. I would not change the remaining 10 in the current box. As you mentioned Koncar, he was quite a prominent communist, revolutionary and partisan, which were historically very prominent "occupations" in the region ;) Vladimir (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
OK. So so far Nikola Tesla, Rade Šerbedžija, Peja Stojaković, Zaharije Orfelin, Milutin Milanković, Josif Runjanin, Arsen Dedić, Jovan Rašković, Jovan Karamata, Rade Končar and Jovanka Broz, Patriarch Pavle of Serbia and Momčilo Đujić have been mentioned:
OK with me. Vladimir (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
The candidates need to have a photo, right? Was actor Petar Kralj mentioned? Others, academics: the writter, linguist and also revolutionary Simo Matavulj, matematicians and uncle and cousin Đuro Kurepa (no pick) and Svetozar Kurepa (no pick), writer and Yugoslav exiled Nenad Petrović and poet Petar Preradović; polititians: SHS minister Svetozar Pribićević (bad pick), writer and pan-Slavism polititian Medo Pucić, awarded Austrian general and Voivod of Vojvodina Stevan Šupljikac; sportspeople: Siniša Mihajlović, Basket coach Božidar Maljković (no pick), football coach Ratomir Dujković, my parents former friend coach Gojko Zec footballer and coach Ivan Golac, water polist Vladimir Vujasinović, and to finish with style, I would dinner with Milanka Opačić... FkpCascais (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Nikola Tesla, Rade Šerbedžija, Peja Stojaković, Zaharije Orfelin, Milutin Milanković, Patriarch Pavle of Serbia are obviously the untouchible ones... with Rade Končar, Jovan Karamata, Petar Preradović, and possibly Siniša Mihajlović and Stevan Šupljikac just behind. Svetozar Pribićević would be included with better pick, and I feel sorry Josif Runjanin has not done more... Arsen Dedić is an option, and I really don´t see a reason to include Jovanka Broz, I think we have better ones here than just wifes. But we need women, right? Give me a minut to see if I earn a dinner with Milanka if I convince you all to replace Jovanka with her. FkpCascais (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Na, no dinner, so no women, I vote to replace them with the beuty of Siniša Mihajlović, ah? (oh, I touth we had a pick with his long hair and Antrax style...)FkpCascais (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, there's the gender issue. I forgot about it... Vladimir (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Something like this was what I touth for Sinisa, but from this period (see him, 3th standing from left?) FkpCascais (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I would include 8 persons: Nikola Tesla, Jovanka Broz, Momčilo Đujić, Rade Šerbedžija, Patriarch Pavle of Serbia, and ofcourse Milutin Milanković, he is prominent geophysicist... and other two... maybe Peja Stojaković or Simo Matavulj... :/ --Wustenfuchs 12:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

No, enoguh of goddamn sportsman, it will look like Serbs of Croatia only play football and basketball... Jovanka Broz should be included, reason is not that she is a women - no! She is famous women, notable. Everybody knows her. It's not about you decide who is notable, just see her results at google, google books are views at her article. It's not about teaching others that ther were prominent Serbs of Croatia who done something, but to show readers that one famous Serbs is part of that group, he should know that person. We don't need retired footballers, who will be unknown in 2-3 years, ther are millions of footballers... and what they did done to mention them? Made a few scors, that didn't change the world... or Croatia, whatever.--Wustenfuchs 12:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Why not 12? (you were actually wrong about not having 12 notable ones on this). And we actually have only one sportsman, I proposed to have 2 in 12, hardly conclusive to exagerations about sportsman as you said. Koncar, Karamata, Preradovic and Mihajlovic, each one in its field, are actually heavy-weights here.
Despite including some humor, I was actually naming more options that I remembered or found. I didn´t proposed to use ALL of them. In the second part of my previous comment is where I actually vote for the "untouchible" ones. Were you refering to Mihajlović when talking about unknown retired footballers? I was joking about his ideal pic, but you seem uninformed about him. FkpCascais (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I missed professor and SANU president Dejan Medaković, also a 2nd line hypotesis, but bad pic. FkpCascais (talk) 04:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Orfelin's image has been deleted. The only other one over at Commons is this which is a bit lacking in human interest.Fainites barleyscribs 22:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for the update. Unfortunately, that is terrible, because Orfelin was a definitive in. I don´t have any experience in uploding files, can anyone please help on this? FkpCascais (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

@FkpCascais Are you sure Ivan Golac is Serb? There any sources for that?--Rovoobo oboovoR 08:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I didn´t edited his article, and by default suposed the content there is right. He also lived most of his life in Serbia, but that obviously doesn´t mean anything... I´m not 100% sure and since the moment you asked until now I couldn´t find any usefull source about that. Do you have any idea? FkpCascais (talk) 08:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I found this at reprezentacija.rs. In last line says: "the only Serb with UEFA coaching licence for England". I´ll see if I can find more... FkpCascais (talk) 09:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Found him here in listing of Croats in Partizan. [3]--Rovoobo oboovoR 11:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting article. But he lists there Katanec or Čapljić in same group...hmmm... Curiously, I created a number of articles of Croatian players that played in Serbian clubs, many mentioned here. FkpCascais (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Did we solve who is in? I think 8 persons is enoguh, we don't need 12 of them just because we want them more... They aren't so notable, we hardly find those 8, why would we need other 4? 8 is fine number, look 16 Croats, and 3/4 of that will be Serbs of Croatia? (we all know 8 persons is enoguh). It's not a commercial, it's article about Serbs of Croatia. Images on the infobox do not serve teaching people who was a Serb of Croatia, but servs to purpose that a average reader can see someone he could know and conclude, oh, look he is a Serb from Croatia.--Wustenfuchs 12:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
OK Wustenfuchs, we agree that we disagree. But by reading the entire discussion, you seem to be the only one defending 9 (or, are you actually defending 8?). Instead of comparing, and it´s not about comparing, because if we went to see Swedes or French having 12, all Yugoslav nations will probably deserve 1, so it´s not about that, but rather on facilitating inclusion. FkpCascais (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

@FkpCascais Katanec parents are both Croats. Maybe he was going according to that. Don't know about Vlado Čapljić. I think that article was written by Pero Zlatar.--Rovoobo oboovoR 07:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I left you a comment on your talk page, we can continue discussing there is you don´t opose, because here anyway seems that Golac is not considered a strong candidate by any participants, and it was only me naming him among others as possible option, just to check other editors reactions to the names I gave. Who do you feel that should be included in the infobox of this article? FkpCascais (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Wich 12 would you include? Their notability comes to question.--Wustenfuchs 12:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Me? Well, I would include the following ones:
  • 1 - Zaharije Orfelin (Vukovar, Slavonia 1726 - 1785) polimath: Renaissance poet, writer, historian, academic, etc. NO PICK!
  • 2 - Stevan Šupljikac (Petrinja, Moslavina 1786 - 1848) Voivod of Vojvodina, first ruler of Vojvodina.
  • 3 - Petar Preradović (Pitomača, Slavonia 1818 - 1872) poet and pan-slavist.
  • 4 - Nikola Tesla (Smiljan, Lika 1856 - 1943) inventor, Nobel nomene.
  • 5 - Milutin Milanković (Dalj, Baranja 1879 - 1958) geophysicist, civil engineer.
  • 6 - Jovan Karamata (Zagreb, Zagorje 1902 - 1967) mathematician.
  • 7 - Rade Končar (Plitvice, Lika 1911 - 1942) awarded Partisan fighter and communist leader.
  • 8 - Patriarch Pavle of Serbia (Kućanci, ? 1914 - 2009) Patriarch (leader) of the Serbian Orthodox Church.
  • 9 - Rade Šerbedžija (Bunić, Lika 1946) actor, film director and musician.
  • 10- Siniša Mihajlović (Vukovar, Slavonia 1969) footballer, now coach, as player he was 1991 European and world champion.
  • 11- Peja Stojaković (Požega, Slavonia 1977) basketball player, former best european player and current NBA star.

Ok, we will see their results at Google Book, and see how notable those persons really are:

People I would choose are 8 people who have the most results at Google Books. As I said earlier, other 4 are hardly notable, we don't need them. Why is so important to have so many people at infobox? Their notability comes to question.

My 8 people are (according to their results at Google Books):

I think that people with score less then 1,500 or 1,000 shouldn't be at the infobox picture... if you agree ofcourse. --Wustenfuchs 18:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Well 7 of your 8 are also in FKPs list (including Medacovic). That's a good start. Thats Nikola Tesla,Dejan Medaković,Petar Preradović,Rade Končar,Simo Matavulj,Patriarch Pavle of Serbia,Milutin Milanković. For the rest - the google hits are informative but not determinative. Secondly, you are in a minority of one on consensus as to whether to have 8 or 9 rather than 12. If 7 of your 8 picks are agreed by the others, there's no reason why they shouldn't agree on the other 4 or 5. If I'm reading it correctly there seems to be a easure of agreement on Rade Šerbedžija, Josif Runjanin, Peja Stojaković, and Arsen Dedić or have I missed something? Fainites barleyscribs 18:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am aware that I'm a minority here, even I can play by rules of majority and agree that we have 12 persons at the infobox picture, but those 12 should be choosen according to results of Google Books, or with help of Google Books. But problem here are athletes, we won't find them at Google Books for sure, we will need a new way of choosing athletes. But we agree for non-athletes I think...--Wustenfuchs 19:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

But Wustenfuchs, I don´t understand your problems about athletes: they are only 2 of 12, and the notability of both is undisputed (you were completely wrong about Mihajlovic, he is World and European Champions as player, one of the most caped national team players, beside being considered the best free-kick executer of all time! And, best of all, not only that, he is now a successfull coach in Italian Serie A, one of the top 3 leagues in world. Very notable in past, very actual and followed nowadays). Regarding the others, I feel sorry you´re all not considering Jovan Karamata (see his legacy part) and Stevan Šupljikac the founder of Vojvodina, enormosly important for Serbian history, beside great pic, just shortly expanded article for time being. PS: Fainites, you should count my votes until n11, the other are only candidates for n12... just to clarify :) Beside, seems that we´ll be left without a pic for Orfelin, so one more place is open. FkpCascais (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Jovan Karamata seemed to have a fair amount of consensus support above.Fainites barleyscribs 22:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Siniša Mihajlović has about 468.000 general google hits, while for exemple Goran Ivanišević (tennis player included in Croats) has 426.000. He is without doubt one of the best players ever, beside being a present day coach. I think you´re missing his importance in football. I would even dare to say that he is probably even more important and world wide known than Stojakovic... I mean, both are just perfect, two specialoists in each one of very popular sports. FkpCascais (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Well look Cascais, I told you that athletes should have different way of choosing, because, like I said, they won't have nice result at Google Books. Fine for me if you include athletes. And about Stevan Šupljikac, he is fine person an' all, important for Serbian history, but hardly known in English-speaking world, that is my point. And who are we to choose are they notable... that is why I proposed Google Books search results or Google resutls...--Wustenfuchs 12:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

So there is a high degree of agreement on Nikola Tesla,Dejan Medaković,Petar Preradović,Rade Končar,Simo Matavulj,Patriarch Pavle of Serbia, Milutin Milanković, Rade Šerbedžija, Josif Runjanin, Peja Stojaković, Arsen Dedić. That's 11. Jovan Karamata, Jovan Rašković, Jovanka Broz, Svetozar Pribićević or Stevan Šupljikac have all also been proposed by editors. Karamata seems to have the most support, Pribicevic and Supljikac the least. What does consensus say on the last spot? Fainites barleyscribs 15:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with these 11, although I'm unsure whether Jovanka Broz deserves a spot (Vladimir had said earlier that all these people are known for their achievements in their respective fields, but I have no idea what her field would be). But whatever. As for the last spot, I'd be fine with Karamata. I doubt Pribićivić would be missed if he gets dropped. Rašković would be fine as well, but I don't think that he stands a chance of winning consensus. Timbouctou (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
If you ask me, wich 12 persons I want, those are:
  • Petar Preradović 5,660 results
  • Nikola Tesla 25,400 results
  • Milutin Milanković 2,280 results
  • Jovan Karamata 781 results
  • Rade Končar 5,400 results
  • Patriarch Pavle of Serbia 2,970 results
  • Rade Šerbedžija 1,770 results
  • Peja Stojaković 405 results
  • Simo Matavulj 3,930 results
  • Svetozar Pribićević 5,440 results
  • Jovanka Broz 1,850 results
  • Dejan Medaković 7,760 results
Just to let you know...--Wustenfuchs 16:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. 9 of your twelve have consensus, apart from Pribicevic and Broz, and Karamata is popular. Arsen Dedic and Runjanin who aren't in your list have consensus from several others.Fainites barley

scribs 18:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually 2 out of 4 have not included Dedic. Perhaps we should see the remaining candidates and make a final discussion. FkpCascais (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Three people included Dedic. Am I right in thinking you need to decide on either Runjanin and one other, or two others? The remaining candidates as far as I can ascrtain are Jovan Karamata, Jovan Rašković, Jovanka Broz, Svetozar Pribićević or Stevan Šupljikac.Fainites barleyscribs 21:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Orfelin is definitely out because of no pic.  :( actually :((((((((( FkpCascais (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
What was wrong with that last pic? It looked much too old to have copyright issues.Fainites barleyscribs 22:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, do we have a deal? I'll make temporary infobox picture wich will look better then this one we have now. I'll consider those with the most votes, that is I'll add people on wich users agreed, If you have something against, please say, and we will change that. I noticed this discussion ended with no agreement so this is one more try of mine to start discussion.--Wustenfuchs 20:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll include only those persons on wich everybody has agreed. Number of persons is not important.--Wustenfuchs 20:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
The only important thing is consensus. You are being disruptive. Timbouctou (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Quite. Indeed you seem to consider the number of persons very important have consistently pushed for 8 or 9 when everybody else is happy with twelve and having now unilaterally cut the box down. There are 11 people about whom there is a high degree of consensus and several choices for the final spot.Fainites barleyscribs 15:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that Jovanka Broz is a much better choice than Rade Končar. And plus we don't have a single woman in the info box.

Mm.srb (talk) 14:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Info Box III

By my reading of the thread above there is a high degree of consensus for Nikola Tesla,Dejan Medaković,Petar Preradović,Rade Končar,Simo Matavulj,Patriarch Pavle of Serbia, Milutin Milanković, Rade Šerbedžija, Josif Runjanin, Peja Stojaković, Arsen Dedić. Other candidates for the last place are Orfelin - if we ever find a picture, Jovan Karamata, Jovan Rašković, Jovanka Broz, Svetozar Pribićević or Stevan Šupljikac, of which Karamata seems the most popular. Can we try and make a final decision on this please so there isno more slow-motion edit-warring.Fainites barleyscribs 20:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The same pictura that was deleted could be downloaded from here, if that's OK. Vladimir (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Is there any kind of copyright problem? Here is the record of it being deleted. It looks as if it wasn't uploaded properly in the first place. If you could find a version of the image to upload which complies with the requirements it should be fine. If the drawing is from life it can't possibly still be copyrighted.Fainites barleyscribs 15:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I have replaced the earlier version of this box that was in place whilst this matter was being actively discussed above because it looks like there is a slow moving edit war about to develop - as has been the case over so many of these boxes. Wustenfuchs reduced it to 8 for which there was no consensus - claiming it included the names agreed. In fact - editors had agreed 11 people, + Orfelin if the picture was OK. Now M.srb has changed one of Wustenfuch's pictures to include his preferred person. There is no basis for edit warring over this. Editors have practically reached agreement on 12 people. Not everybody can have every single person they want but most editors have most of the ones they want. If any more changes are made to the people in the info box before consensus is reached I will protect the page.Fainites barleyscribs 15:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Jesus, I'd include 12 persons if we would agree on all of those 12 persons, and since we all agreed on 8 persons, I added 8 persons. We would later add more, as you wish, I just had in mind to improve infobox a bit, but as you wish. You made mistake ther.--Wustenfuchs 19:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Fainites, would you be kind to list those 11 persons...? Max number of people would be 9 then, and we can always add more with further discussion. We can also make 5x2, but it would be to wide then... 3x3 would do the trick.--Wustenfuchs 19:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it's high time we wrap this up. There's no reason not to have 12 images, and if they are ordered in four rows by 3 then the info box would be just the right size. These are the 12 people the consensus agreed upon, ordered here by year of birth (in brackets).

I've put them all in in that order. I've reserved two spots for Orfelin and Končar and I've cropped Arsen Dedić's pic so he can fit better. I'll look for Orfelin's image which should be freely licensed considering the guy lived in the 18th century, but the problem is that there is no information about the source from which the image previously used had been taken from. Končar might be even more trickier to fix as the image was taken probably in the 1930s but maybe it could be tagged as PD (see File:Jovanka Broz.jpg) if it was published by the Yugoslav federal government. But for that we would need to know its source, which is also currently missing. If one or both get dropped these are the candidates for replacement, each coming with a free image:

So the only issue left to discuss is who the editors would want in the info box in lieu of Končar and/or Orfelin. Since these are all people with merits one way or another I suggest editors focus on who simply looks photogenic the most. My preferred choice would be Rašković, as his picture has a certain artsy quality about it, but that's just my opinion. My second choice would be Karamata. Cheers. Timbouctou (talk) 03:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I would definitely prefer Jovan Karamata, with Šupljikac and Pribićević. I would leave out Arsen Dedić and Rašković (Raskovic pic is also terrible). FkpCascais (talk) 03:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
OK. Lets PD Koncar and find a source for Orfelin. If we can't do that in say, the next week, stick in Karamata? Fainites barleyscribs 11:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Why some of you don't upload Orfelin's image, it's more then 100 yrs old, so we shouldn't have copyright problems...? We should also take care of Končar's image, and that's it. We solved it all.--Wustenfuchs 09:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Vladimir solved Orfelin. Only Končar is left. If his pic does not get properly tagged by the end of this week we can replace him with Karamata. (Btw I'd like to keep Dedić). Timbouctou (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Hehe, seems we have a conflict over Dedić. I personally fan more the others I´ve mentioned Karamata, great mathematician, Supljikac, major historical figure, etc.), and beside, I think he is Croatian, so not much representative of Serbs of Croatia, despite his parents roots... FkpCascais (talk) 00:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Well we don't have to have conflict Fkp. Out of 12 places, most of the ones everybody wanted are in. Looks reasonable to me. Fainites barleyscribs 10:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Don´t warry Fainites, once a year Timbou and I need to disagree on something, otherwise nationalists will condemn us for being too friendly with eachother :) Anyway, I had none of my proposals included: Karamata, Supljikac, Mihailovic are all out by now, and I agreed not to suport the inclusion of Djujic as good faith gesture, athough I personally think he should be included. Otherwise, why you defend Dedic so much, you appreciate him, or something? FkpCascais (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Really, does Dedić identify himself as a Serb at all? It seems questionable to me too. This reminds me on a Serbian (possibly also Croatian) saying: Odakle ti je žena, odatle ti je rod :) Vladimir (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Me? I don't care. As long as you guys can agree.Fainites barleyscribs 15:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I placed Jovanka Broz in the info box. Reasons: 1) We do not have a single woman in the info box. 2) We do not have the permission for image of Rade Končar. Mm.srb (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we should complete this discussion. I think we have way better options than some found in the infobox at this point. FkpCascais (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It's fine by me. Mm.srb (talk) 02:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Mm.srb you have not taken part in this discussion until now and you don't get to decide who goes in the infobox by fiat. Jovanka was only one of several options for the vacant place and was well behind Karamata in consensus terms. Can we try and wrap this up at all people?Fainites barleyscribs 21:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
We have little left to dicuss. Končar is obviously out for copyright concerns and he should be replaced by either Karamata or Šupljikac (it seems there was more consensus for Karamata). I don't care either way. I'd also like to keep Dedić in. His own brother considers him a Serb and that's good enough for me. I suppose he's not as famous in Serbia as he in Croatia - but why should he be? We are talking about "Serbs of Croatia" here, not "Serbs who happened to be born in Croatia before doing something that a Serbia-living Serb might have heard of". In comparison an average citizen of Croatia never heard of half of the people in the info box and by that I mean Orfelin, Milanković, Medaković and Karamata. Maybe they are superstars in Serbia, I don't know - but they are virtually anonymous this side of the border. Also, Pavle and Stojaković are known to only select groups of people in the very country their ethnic group supposedly comes from. So yeah, I don't see a problem with putting in Dedić next to all of them nor do I see how anyone can argue otherwise. Cheers. Timbouctou (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Serbs of Croatia language

According the census from 2001, made by Republic of Croatia, 3,5% of Croatian Serbs declared that they mother tounge is Croatian. Some users may have problem with this, but I'll show results:

89,6% of population are Croats, while 4,5% of Croatian population are Serbs. 96,1% of Croatian citizens stated that their mother tounge is Croatian, while 1% declared to speak Serbian. Maths, what can you do... :/ --Wustenfuchs 20:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I may feel specially stupid today after a nice weekend, but ... What? FkpCascais (talk) 08:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
According to the 2001 census there are some 200,000 Serbs in Croatia, or 4.5% of the total population. If 1% of the population stated that their mother tongue is Serbian that makes it roughly 45,000 people. Assuming that only Serbs opted for Serbian (as it is unlikely that there are Eskimos who grew up in Croatia speaking Serbian) this would mean that around 22% of Serbs in Croatia stated that their first language is Serbian, or roughly one in five said they spoke Serbian. Btw the Croatian weekly issued by the Serb National Council Novosti prints articles in both Serbian and Croatian, and in both the Cyrillic and Latin alphabets. And speaking from personal experience it seems that ethnic Serbs from urban centres like Zagreb or Rijeka always speak "pure" Croatian while those from areas with significant Serb populations (which are a bit more rural) usually speak "pure" Serbian. This makes sense as there are few Serbian-language schools in large cities but in places like Vukovar most Serb children take Serbian-language lessons and have slightly different curricula. It's the same with other minorities like Italians. I would say that 22% sounds like a realistic figure to me. Timbouctou (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Also, what's up with population stats per Croatian county? There are 14 counties listed in the infobox now (out of 21) and I fail to see the purpose. It is like listing numbers of Croatian Americans per each U.S. state. Perhaps 2-3 counties with the biggest number of Serbs could be listed (let's say only counties with Serbs accounting for more than 10% of total population) but putting them all in makes no sense. Timbouctou (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I think it's high time we go past the disingenuous dis-infobox syndrome and start explaining sensitive issues properly in context. There must be some recent linguistics work somewhere that will explain how the Serbs of Croatia and Bosnia both by and large speak the old-school hrvatskosrpski, and yet the modern-day designation used is entirely dependent on circumstances. For those who live in Croatia, it's usually hard to see the problem of saying they speak hrvatski because a) they do indeed speak the same language as their majority neighbours b) it easily passes as a geographic reference for those who don't actually care much c) like the first reason but they feel peer pressure not to stand out or are afraid someone could find out what they said in the census form and similar d) those with excess nationalistic zeal aren't there anyway because they didn't return after the war. Whereas, for those who live in Bosnia, it's hard to see the problem of saying they speak "srpski" because a) they mostly live in R. Srpska so it's both a national and a "regional" designation, disregarding the geography b) they live in a dysfunctional country where the rule of national separation has become increasingly common even when schizophrenic, so the language "must" match ethnicity c) they feel peer pressure not to stand out etc d) there's little apparent barrier to nationalistic zeal in RS. That's how the two groups who could be just 50 km apart show "conflicting" statistics. The conflict is much more in the state of mind rather than in the observable facts. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Although I agree that explaining the context is necessary for any reader to understand the situation, what the census had reported is a fact which should not be ignored, regardless of the circumstances. There is 45,000 people living in Croatia who state that their language is "Serbian". I'm well informed about the linguistic issues surrounding this designation, and the fact that it was all called Serbo-Croatian for decades makes it seem even more bizarre. Linguistically-wise these were considered the same language up until the early 1990s - but the two languages have developed into opposite directions since, which was fueled by nationalism-infused proscriptive linguists. The rest of the world still sees them as dialects of one language but locals see it as two separate languages. But there's no need to go into all that now. The fact is that the Serbian minority has a constitutional right to education in their own language, and in some parts of Croatia this right is exercised by a large number of Serbs, just like there are bi-lingual road signs, official documents, etc. This is relevant for the issue as the language one adopts in Croatia mostly depends on the school one goes to. I have met a number of students of Serb ethnicity at the University of Zagreb and there was absolutely no way to tell the difference between them and Croats just by listening to the way they spoke. Also, I can't remember a single instance of Aleksandar Stanković or Milanka Opačić uttering anything resembling Serbian and even Milorad Pupovac (who is a linguist by vocation btw) only rarely uses Serbian vocabulary - and even if he does, it's a very far cry from listening to someone from Vojvodina or Belgrade. One might say that until 1990 what Serbs of Croatia spoke was "Serbo-Croatian" and after that they either adopted the present-day Croatian standard (in Croat-dominated areas including big cities) or the modern Serbian standard (in areas which were Serb-held during the war). The situation continues to this day. Hence you get protests by local Serbs demanding road signs in Serbian and legislation printed in Cyrillic in places like Vukovar - but not in Zagreb or Rijeka where Serbs also live and where they were effectively assimilated. Of course, one might argue that there are no such demands because of "fear" of provoking a nationalist response by the Croat public - but still, what would be the purpose? Is there anyone raised in Zagreb who needs street signs in Cyrillic to understand what street they are in? Anyway, it is a matter of people's opinion, and almost everyone polled in the census is not schooled on the differences between languages, language dialects and language standards. After all, ethnicity itself is a matter of choice at the end of the day, and so are the aspects which people consider to be signs of their ethnicity. I'd say that for many Serbs in Croatia Serbian language is simply not considered as relevant for describing their ethnic background. Timbouctou (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure where's the disconnect, because I never objected to the inclusion of "Serbian" in the infobox. I thought we were arguing about the recent addition of "Croatian" next to it :)
BTW I don't think the wartime in Croatia was enough time to actually get the srpskohrvatski variant (modern Serbian *ekavian* standard) to become relevant, let alone entrenched, even in what was at the time Martić's back yard. The wackos in Knin all pretty much spoke the western, hrvatskosrpski variant. Maybe they forced themselves to switch to eastern as they spouted random nationalist tripe against Croats, but that was all for show.
On the other hand, today we have the issue of "Serbian" being ambiguous meaning various things, which probably confuses a lot of people. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh sorry, I had assumed this was about the removal of "Serbian" from the infobox on the grounds that Serbs in Croatia don't speak it :) I didn't realise that "Croatian" was added only recently, but I see no problem with it. As for using the 2001 census as a source, notice that the census asked people about their "materinji jezik" or "first language", which is usually defined as the language one learns from their parents and speaks at home. For example for many people in Istria Italian would be their first language, but this does not preclude them from speaking Croatian in public if they were educated in a Croatian-language school. It's the same for Serbs, Hungarians, Slovaks and all other minorities. Since all Serbs of Croatia are Croatian citizens one can safely assume that the majority of those who state that their first language is Serbian are proficient in Croatian as well, and the census only shows that almost 80% of Serbs did not choose Serbian as their native language for whatever reason. It might be worth mentioning that the census itself was done in Croatian :)
You may be right about Krajina, they mainly spoke hrvatskosrpski (HS) and since the entire region was more or less left empty of Serbs after 1995 this is not an issue today. Serbian refugees who returned in the meantime probably speak HS also. Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Syrmia is a better example since it had been peacefully reintegrated into Croatia and Serbs were guaranteed rights including their language and Serbian school curricula in the process. So if there is anyone speaking "Serbian" in the country today, it is Serbs in that area, but I imagine that even if a Serb person from there enrolled at the Zagreb University he/she would have no problem adapting to Croatian as spoken by local professors. So generally speaking Serbs living in Croatia either speak Croatian or are bilingual, depending on their ethnic background, personal circumstances and the writer's preferred definition of languages. It's the same thing with Croats living in Vojvodina or Boka Kotorska. In short, the infobox should list both languages. A small section explaining the difference between the two (or lack of it) would be a useful addition. Timbouctou (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I think both languages should stay in infobox. I think you are missing something, and that is that for all people I know that are Serbs from Croatia, they actually speak both, meaning, when they are with other Serbs (me, for exemple) they speak Serbian, and when they are "on telephone" with people from Croatia (neighbours from Karlovac, for exemple), they speak Croatian... So they really speak both, now, perhaps you find some Serbs without links to other Serbian inhabited areas (students in Zagreb, for exemple), and many obviously speak only Croatian... Resumingly, Serbs in Croatia obviously speak both. FkpCascais (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
PS: It is actually interesting and funny to see how they can easily switch from one to another. "Jeste brate, idemo da žderemo, čekaj samo da vidim ko me zove..." "Alo?! E, kaj veliš, kad ćeš doć?..." FkpCascais (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
That's sort of like Milan Bandić ;) But I'm guessing that this is more of an effect of living in Serbia among proper Serbian speakers. Hm, that might come off wrong... What I'm saying is that for people from Karlovac or Zagreb, their native tongue, the language of their upbringing, is definitely the western variant (whether you call it hrvatski or hrvatskosrpski or srpski), whether they're ethnically Croat or Serb, whether it's 1960 or 2010. At least I never heard anything to the contrary. And then, when a person from there moves to e.g. Belgrade and spends a bit of time there interacting with the locals, they are able to pick up all the intricacies of the eastern variant (srpski or srpskohrvatski, hopefully nobody applies the hrvatski label to that but even so) and are usually able to speak it as prescribed - also regardless of ethnicity. Given enough time, propensity and having an ear for it - their Serbian then becomes indistinguishable from born-and-bred native. The same would work in the other direction (although because ours has more data (j's) it might be just a tad harder to attune to). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the most conventional meaning of "people who speak Serbian" in Croatia would be ethnic Serb people from easternmost parts of Slavonia. But, it needs to be said that also by and large didn't change from Yugoslav times - a lot of people from Vukovar and further to the east *always* spoke ekavian, or srpskohrvatski. (Local Croats too.) So that part is as straightforward as it can be - there is a clear geographic distinction that's pretty easy to correlate with whatever language terminology is applied. The less straightforward part is explaining the people who are using a more fringe language term just because they feel like it. But, it wouldn't be right to dismiss these out of hand. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I actually don´t have a clear stand on the issue of same/different language. I mean, if you pick the exact oposites (exemple, Kajkavski and Torlakian) anyone could easily lobbie how those are two completely separate laguages, but, where is the border for the ones in between? There are certainly other languages that have greater differences between their regional dialects. However, it is interesting to see, and I´m exposing this here without any intentions, just as curiosity, that the ekavski/ijekavski map similarly matches the one of Greater Croatia ([4]/[5]), and the stokavian/other to the Greater Serbia ([6]/[7]). The issue is that basically the majority is shtokavian/ijekavski, so what conclusions should we make from it? A ironic thing happend in a discussion I participated years ago at ANI ethnic issues where we were debating about Montenegrin language. The funiest thing was that we concluded that I could speak with the other Montenegrin user speaking both the same language, just that I´ll call it Serbian, and he Montenegrin... FkpCascais (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Bilingualism in Serbian and Croatian (as some mentioned it above) - what a funny idea. Croatian (hrvatski jezik) is the collective name for the standard language and dialects spoken by Croats [...] They are varieties of the Serbo-Croatian language, along with Serbian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin. So, what's the bilingualism in using varieties of essentially the same language? Also, there seems to be some misunderstanding of the terms srpskohrvatski and hrvatskosrpski. These are synonyms for the same language, whereby the former is mostly used by Serbs and the latter by Croats. They do not denote two variants of that language. So if asked what language they spoke, most of the Serbs in ex-SR Croatia would probably answer srpskohrvatski. On the other hand, if this should suggest that Ekavian is srpskohrvatski and Ijekavian is hrvatskosrpski, implying that Ijekavian is what distinguishes the Croatian variant from the Serbian one, this is far from truth. For example, the native variant of the main creator of the modern Serbian standard, Vuk Karadžić, was Ijekavian, and he always spoke and wrote in that variant of Serbian (and he was a Serb from Loznica, of Herzegovinian descent). Serbs from Krajina speak Ijekavian, one of the two recognized and standard variants of Serbian, which is in every respect equal with the other variant, Ekavian.
Where is the source for those percentages from 2001? And was there not a census in Croatia this year? In any way, if Cr. is to be placed in the infobox, it can only be placed after Serbian. Vladimir (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, but I think no one said that ijekavian meant Croatian, my point was exactly the oposite, to demonstrate how both languages are actually complex and indefined, giving exactly the exemple of the people "in between" (the Ijekavski/Shtokavian) that had people from all nationalities involved and that can hardly be labeled as 100% belonging to one in oposition to another one. Regarding Montenegrin, you numbered it but it is still actually not considered a full laguage, but that is another discussion... FkpCascais (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, there were some potentially ambiguous statements above, I just wanted it to be clear. I copied that from the article Croatian language. Vladimir (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
No problem, reading back I see what you mean. I think Joy gave the exemple of Ekavian as a "clar exemple", meaning, a person speaking Ekavian is certainly speaking Serbian, just as we could say that a person speaking Kajkavian was certainly speaking Croatian. It was that touth that gave me the idea of triying to define the rest "in between" and to show how tricky abd difficult can be labeling as Serbian or Croatian a person speaking Ijekavian-Stokavian (basically all between Slovenia border until Zapadna Morava river).
Regarding Montenegrin, it still lacks ISO code, which is essential for a language to be standarised and recognised. With time I am more and more starting to strongly lobbie against Montenegrin, considering in the process the recognition of Bosnian language a mistake as well. I am aware of the polemics that my opinion can have, but it has nothing to do with oposition on ethnic background (I´m 20% proudly Montenegrin), but purely linguistical issues. What once was Serbo-Croatian (Croato-Serbian) being now 2 different languages (Serbian and Croatian) is already an "archivement", but further dividing it into Bosnian, Montenegrin... seems just crazy to me. FkpCascais (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, but again, with this conversation we are actually completing the circle of how the language is used as political weapon. FkpCascais (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, that was a classic example how a discussion about a specific issue in a specific article quickly devolves into a typical forum discussion. Did you even try reading some of the above text before reverting to the classic talking points about Serbo-Croatian, Vuk Karadžić, etc? Sheesh. FYI yes, we know all that. The matter at hand is why these same Krajina Serbs by and large gave a somewhat peculiar answer to census workers in 2001. [8] and [9] are literally three clicks away from googling "hrvatska popis stanovništva 2001" so the default "this is not sourced!" retort just doesn't fly. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad that you know all that. Still there's no harm in stating several facts, just in case. I have no intention to start a forum discussion here. Apart from that, I'm surprised that you see some default "this is not sourced!" retort in my question about the sources. This is no retort of any kind, just a simple question. I suppose the one who posts such statistical data is expected to present sources from which he gathered the data. Take it easy. Vladimir (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
  • This is hardly an appropriate place to beat one of the most beaten of all dead horses on Wikipedia, the Serbo-Croatian language. FYI I happened to take a course in sociolinguistics in college and the issue is described very well in modern-day linguistics literature. So to answer Fkp's question - there is no rule in linguistics which determines what is what lay people call a "language" from a "dialect". There is a difference between the two of course but why one variant becomes a dialect and some other is described as a language is not governed by any linguistic rules. Linguists talk about language continuums and language standards. "Continuums" are sequences of closely related linguistic variants - for example, the way people speak in Zagreb may be similar to the way they speak in Varaždin, which is maybe similar to what they speak in Bjelovar, and so on further east up to let's say Belgrade. Now Belgrade and Zagreb could be taken as extreme points of such a continuum, which would then encompass numerous linguistic shades in between. A "standard" is simply one of these variants (or a combination of several variants) which had been taken from the continuum and agreed upon by linguists as the most prestigious ("best") form which everyone from Zagreb to Belgrade should follow in public discourse (e.g. it is proscribed and taught at schools). For example, the British English standard was based on the language as once spoken by upper classes in London and scholars at Oxford and Cambridge. Serbo-Croatian is hence today considered a single language with at least three different official standards (Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian). Now the difference between a dialect and a language is always a sociolinguistic (e.g. "political") one: since one variant has to be taken as the basis of a language standard, all others are then described as dialects in comparison to the standard form. But since the points taken to describe a continuum are sometimes arbitrary, and the choice which variant should be taken as the most prestigious one is even more so, it all comes down to political and social factors. So strictly linguistically speaking these B/C/S variants are just differently standardized forms of the same language but sociolinguistically (meaning "what their status is in societies which use them") these are considered different languages for purely political reasons (e.g. Croatian constitution calls its language "Croatian", Serbian constitution calls it "Serbian", and so on). You can always develop additional standardized forms of the same language if you wish (like Montenegrins plan to do apparently) but the language will still be considered as the same as far as linguists are concerned (for example today we have British English and American English; there was also a movement to recognize Australian English and Canadian English and there's Indian English which is gaining recognition in recent years). But socially and politically speaking there is no doubt that people living in this area today consider their languages as separate even though they are very similar linguistically (shared grammar but slightly different vocabulary).
@Vladimir: "Bilingualism in Serbian and Croatian (as some mentioned it above) - what a funny idea. Croatian (hrvatski jezik) is the collective name for the standard language and dialects spoken by Croats [...] They are varieties of the Serbo-Croatian language, along with Serbian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin. So, what's the bilingualism in using varieties of essentially the same language?" - actually the sentence you quoted should more correctly read "as spoken by Croatians" (people in Croatia), not "Croats" (ethnicity). Everyone in Croatia is taught the Croatian standard at school and people of all ethnic backgrounds speak it on a regular basis. If you take a look at the info box of the Croatia article you will find that the official language of the country is "Croatian", with an added note saying that "Recognised minority languages on the municipal level are Hungarian, Czech, Slovak and Serbian." So Serbian is definitely recognized as a different language in Croatia and many rights stemming from that distinction are exercised by Serbs of Croatia (different textbooks in schools, state-funded publications in Serbian, road and street signs in Serbian, etc.). This is the legal status of these languages in Croatia and it has nothing to do with how linguistically similar they are. Furthermore, respondents in the census are not expected to be aware of the finer points of linguistics and are simply required to state their opinion. Which they did, hence the collected data.
  • Also, there seems to be some misunderstanding of the terms srpskohrvatski and hrvatskosrpski. These are synonyms for the same language, whereby the former is mostly used by Serbs and the latter by Croats. They do not denote two variants of that language. So if asked what language they spoke, most of the Serbs in ex-SR Croatia would probably answer srpskohrvatski. - I'm 100% certain that no one living in Croatia today would describe their language as srpskohrvatski. I have met ethnic Serbs from Našice, Bjelovar and Zagreb who have been educated following Croatian curricula at their local schools and there's no doubt that they would call their language Croatian; those living in eastern Slavonia today would probably call what they speak Serbian. Even my boss at work is a Serb who spent his whole life in Zagreb and he speaks the Zagreb variant of Croatian just like me. Milanka Opačić, Aleksandar Stanković, Rade Šerbedžija, and Željko Jovanović are all examples of prominent Serbs who can often be heard speaking publicly and whose language is virtually identical compared to any Croat's.
  • "Where is the source for those percentages from 2001?"
  • Here's the link to the State Statistics Office with 2001 census data about first language (possible answers were Serbian (S), Croatian (C), Serbo-Croatian (SH) and Croato-Serbian (HS). The results were as follows:
  • Croatian = 4.25 million or 96.12%
  • Serbian = 44,629 or 1.01%
  • SH = 4,961 or 0.11%
  • HS = 2,054 or 0.05%
  • "And was there not a census in Croatia this year?" - Yes, it ended five days ago and I think first results are expected to be published some time in June, although it will only be preliminary results containing the most basic of categories so we might have to wait a bit longer for language statistics.
  • In any way, if Cr. is to be placed in the infobox, it can only be placed after Serbian - Why? Even if you choose to interpret the figures in such a way that you consider everyone who opted for Serbian/SH/HS as ethnically Serbian, it still means that roughly three quarters of the total number of Serbs in Croatia chose not to do so. Even if you add in around 16,000 people who refused to state their language the total would be around 68,000 - which means that at least two thirds out of 200,000 Serbs in Croatia definitely did respond to that question but chose not to pick either Serbian, HS nor SH as their mother tongue. So for any Serb who thinks of himself as speaking Serbian there are at least two or three other Serbs who think of themselves as speaking Croatian. How can we ignore this and why wouldn't we list the languages in the order according to frequency as presented by the census? Timbouctou (talk) 01:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree, and I´m completely OK. It is a fact that Serbs in Croatia speak the regional dialects of the places where they live (Lika, Dalmatia, Slavonia...), in oposition to the ethnic naming. I was just talking "other things" because I touth we had this cleared and we could move on. Best regards to all. FkpCascais (talk) 12:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I know that today almost no one declares their language to be srpskohrvatski or hrvatskosrpski. I referred to ex-SR Croatia, i.e., to the c. 1950-1990 period.
The table on that link shows no separate data for the Serbs. So, basically, we can only assume how the Serbs answered to the census question about the first language, regardless of the fact that some assumptions are more probable than others. I'm not sure how encyclopedic is that. Vladimir (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
We are unlikely ever to have a breakdown of native languages by ethnicity of respondents in any census. Also, note that such an argument can work both ways - if you use that logic to question the validity of the assumption that local Serbs speak Croatian than you are also questioning the validity of the assumption that local Serbs speak Serbian. How do you know that Serbs in Croatia do not speak English or Esperanto instead? How do you know that it is the Serbs who referred to themselves as Orthodox? Timbouctou (talk) 04:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
One thing we know: Serbs speak Serbian. It is ridiculous (to say the least) to question that. When you provide references that clearly state that "local Serbs" speak Croatian, then we can take it into consideration. You also ignore the fact that most of the Serbs of Croatia have been expelled from their homes and now live in Serbia, Republika Srpska, and other countries. Despite of their status as refugees, they are still a part of this people called "Serbs of Croatia". I wonder what would they declare as their first language: Serbian or Croatian. And above all that, you also insist in putting Croatian first?? Vladimir (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
You insisted on an absurdly literal approach so I will do the same. How exactly do "we know" that ethnic Serbs anywhere speak Serbian? Do you have a reference for that? And do you have a reference for the idea that 200,000 citizens of Croatia most of whom go to Croatian schools and study at Croatian universities do not speak Croatian? And do you have a reference for the claim that those who do live elsewhere do not speak Croatian (or whatever you want the call the variant of Serbo-Croatian spoken in Croatia)? The order in which the languages are listed is irrelevant to me. Timbouctou (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Whatever. Vladimir (talk) 15:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Serbs_of_Croatia/Archive_6&oldid=1248636197"